Luigi Corvaglia
There are two ways to hit the target. One is to have good aim and hit the innermost circle of the target. The other is to hit randomly and draw the target around the hole we have made. This second system is more effective, but only if no one is watching us shoot.
A group of sociologists who have monopolised the study of "new religious movements" is a good example of the second kind. These authors, gathered around the Centro Studi Nuove Religioni (CESNUR) in Turin, put forward a single and simple thesis in hundreds of mutually recognised articles in a kind of cross-peer review, namely that is, that mind manipulation is a myth. It follows that the "cults" that abuse their followers are nothing more than a "moral panic" created by a phantom anti-cult movement that is "bereft of scientific credibility". In short, people join destructive cults of their own free will and after a rational assessment and stay there. This portrayal is made with complete indifference to the enormous amount of experimental psychology, neuropsychology and social psychology studies on persuasion and social influence. In fact, it has been clear for decades that individual and collective decisions defy rationality and that the human mind is susceptible to suggestion and systematic errors that can be exploited by those who wish to direct them (Tversky & Kahneman, 1979; Cacioppo & Petry, 1984; Damasio, 1984; Zimbardo, 2002; Budzynska & Weger, 2011).
There is someone who received a Nobel Prize for these studies on the manipulability of the mind: Daniel Kahneman. The social influence and power of the perception of oneself as part of a group (self-categorisation) in determining actions is a consolidated legacy of scientific knowledge (Turner, 1987, 1991, Turner & Reynolds, 2012). The existence of persuasion techniques is the basis of marketing and political propaganda strategies (Cialdini, 2017; Sharot, 2018).
Despite this undeniable mass of data on persuasion compiled by the disciplines truly relevant to such studies, the aforementioned sociologists repeat in chorus that "science" has rejected the theory of "brainwashing". What science? Theirs, i.e. studies based on data such as proselytism and retention rates in new religious movements.
All psychological and neurobiological studies do not count. This approach is akin to a group of boys refusing to play football and therefore deciding to fence in a new, smaller pitch, thereby defining the rules of a new game, by deciding who can and cannot play, and finally declaring that those who play traditional football are not really playing football. It's like drawing the target around the hole.
Comments